• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #92: FTL Rework and Galactic Terrain

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is about Faster than Light travel in the Cherryh update, and it's likely to be a controversial one. When discussing, please remember to keep things civil, and I would kindly ask that you read the entire dev diary before rushing to post, as it's going to cover some of the questions and concerns we expect to see from the playerbase. Also, as posted last week, all of these changes are currently far away, and we cannot give more details on ETAs or the exact nature of the Cherryh update than we already have. Thank you!

FTL Rework
The single biggest design issue we have had to tackle in the Stellaris team since release is the asymmetrical FTL. While it's a cool and interesting idea on paper, the honest truth is that the feature just does not fit well into the game in practice, and blocks numerous improvements on a myriad of other features such as warfare and exploration, as well as solutions to fundamental design problems like the weakness of static defenses. After a lot of debate among the designers, we finally decided that if we were ever going to be able to tackle these issues and turn Stellaris into a game with truly engrossing and interesting warfare, we would have to bite the bullet and take a controversial decision: Consolidating FTL from the current three types down into a primarily hyperlane-based game, with more advanced forms of FTL unlocked through technology.

However, as I have said on the previous occasions when discussing this issue, one thing we would never consider doing is just slashing FTL types from the game without adding in something else to compensate their loss. That is what most of this dev diary is going to be about. However, before continuing with the details on the additions and changes we're making to FTL, I want to cover a couple of the questions I expect will arise from this:

Why are you removing FTL choices instead of building on them?
A lot of people have asked this question when we have brought up consolidating FTL types before, suggesting that problems such as static defenses can be solved by just adding more mechanics to handle each special case. I think the problem with this is best illustrated with defense stations and FTL inhibitors. One of the aims of the Starbase system is to give empires the ability to 'lock down' their borders, building fortresses that enemy fleets cannot simply skip past to strike at their core worlds, instead of having to create static defenses in every single valuable system.

With hyperlanes, this is a pretty simple affair: As hyperlanes create natural choke points, the only thing a hyperlane-stopping FTL inhibitor needs to do is to prevent enemy fleets from leaving the system once they enter it. The fleet can enter, it can retreat (via emergency FTL) and it can bring down the source of the FTL inhibitor (which might be a Starbase or even a planet) to be able to continue. This is quite easy to understand, both in terms of which system you need to defend to lock down your borders, and how it works when you are on the offensive.

Now let's add Warp to the mix. In this case, the single-system FTL inhibitor is useless because Warp fleets can just go over it, so we'll invent another mechanic: A warp interdiction bubble, stretching a certain distance around the system, that pull in any hostile Warp fleets traveling there to the system containing the FTL inhibitor, and force them to battle it or retreat. This is immediately a lot more messy: First of all, this bubble can't possibly affect Hyperlane fleets, because it could potentially pull them dozens of jumps away from their current location. This means that when fortifying your borders, you now need to not just make sure that every important chokepoint is covered, but also that your entire border is covered in warp interdiction bubbles.

But there's more: Add Wormholes as well, and you now have an FTL type where not only the 'bubble' type interdictor doesn't make intuitive sense (because Wormhole fleets make point-to-point jumps rather than traveling over the map) but if said interdictor works to pull Wormhole fleets out of position regardless of what makes intuitive sense, you end up with the same probem as with hyperlanes, where the fleet can get pulled out of range of its wormhole network and end up stranded even if it brings down the defenses. This means you pretty much have to invent a third type of interdiction type for Wormhole on top of what is already an overengineered and hard to understand system.

Finally, add the problem of displaying all these different types of inhibitors and interdictors on the map, in a way that the player can even remotely start to understand, and you end up with nothing short of a complete mess, where it's far better to just have static defenses protecting single valuable systems... and so we come full circle.

This is the fundamental problem that we have been grappling with when it comes to asymmetrical FTL: What works in a game such as Sword of the Stars, with its turn-based gameplay, small maps of usually no more than 3-6 empires, and 1-on-1 wars breaks down completely in a Stellaris game with real-time gameplay and wars potentially containing a dozen actors, all with their own form of FTL. The complexity collapses into what is for the player just a mess of fleets appearing and disappearing with no discernible logic to them.

Why Hyperlanes?
When discussing this, we essentially boiled down the consolidation into three possibilities: Hyperlanes only, Warp-only, and Warp+Hyperlanes. Wormhole is simply too different a FTL type to ever really work with the others, and not intuitive enough to work as the sole starting FTL for everyone playing the game. Keeping both Warp and Hyperlanes would be an improvement, but would still keep many of the issues we currently have in regards to user experience and fleet coordination. Warp-only was considered as an alternative, but ultimately Hyperlanes won out because of the possibilities it opens up for galactic geography, static defenses and enhancements to exploration.

Here are the some of the possibilities that consolidation of FTL into Hyperlanes creates for Stellaris:
  • Unified distance, sensor and border systems that make sense for everyone (for example, cost of claiming a system not being based on euclidean distance but rather the actual distance for ships to travel there)
  • Galactic 'geography', systems that are strategically and tactically important due to location and 'terrain' (more on this below) rather than just resources
  • More possibilities for galaxy generation and exploration (for example, entire regions of space accessible only through a wormhole or a single guarded hyperlane, containing special locations and events to discover)
  • Better performance through caching and unified code (Wormhole FTL in particular is a massive resource hog in the late game)
  • Warfare with a distinct sense of 'theatres', advancing/retreating fronts and border skirmishes (more on this in future dev diaries)
Are all new forms of FTL free patch content?
Yes. Naturally we're not going to charge for any form of content meant to replace the loss of old FTL types.

Hyperlane and Sublight Travel
As mentioned, in the Cherryh update. all empires will now start the game with Hyperlanes as their only mode of FTL. By default, hyperlane generation is going to be changed to create more 'islands' and 'choke points', to make for more interesting galactic geography. However, as we know some players do not enjoy the idea of constricted space, we are going to add a slider that controls the general frequency and connectivity of hyperlanes. Turning this up will create a more connected galaxy and make it harder to protect all your systems with static defenses, for players who prefer something closer to the current game's Warp-style movement.

Sublight travel is also being changed somewhat, in the sense that you need to actually travel to the entry point to a particular hyperlane (the arrow inside a system) to enter it, rather than being able to enter any hyperlane from any point outside's a system's gravity well. This means that fleets will move in a more predictable fashion, and interdictions will frequently happen inside systems instead of nearly always being at the edge of them, in particular allowing for fleets to 'guard' important hyperlane entry/exit points. To compensate for the need to move across systems, sublight travel has been sped up, especially with more advanced forms of thrusters.
2017_11_02_2.png


FTL Sensors
Along with the change to FTL, we are also changing the way sensors work. Instead of simply being a circle radiating an arbitrary distance from a ship, station or planet, each level of sensors can now see a certain distance in FTL connections. For example, a ship with level 1 sensors (Radar) will only give sensor coverage of the same system that it is currently in, while a ship with level 2 (Gravitic) sensors will give sensor coverage of that system and all systems connected to it through a Hyperlane or explored Wormhole (more on that below), a ship with level 3 sensors will be able to see systems connected to those systems, and so on. Sensor coverage can be 'blocked' by certain galactic features (more on that below), which will also block propagation into further connected systems. We are currently discussing the implementation of sensor blockers as a potential Starbase component.
2017_11_02_1.png


Wormholes
While Wormhole as a full-fledged FTL type is gone, Wormholes are not. Instead they have been changed into a natural formation that can be encountered while exploring the galaxy. Wormholes come in pairs, essentially functioning as very long hyperlanes that can potentially take a ship across the entire galaxy near-instantly. Natural Wormholes are unstable, and when first encountered, you will not be able to explore them. To explore a Wormhole, you need the Wormhole Stabilization technology, after which a science ship can be sent to stabilize and chart the Wormhole to find out what lies on the other side. If you're lucky, this may be unclaimed space full of valuable systems, but it could just as well be a Devouring Swarm eager to come over for dinner. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of wormhole pairs in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_4.png


Gateways
Gateways is an advanced form of FTL most closely resembling the Wormhole FTL in the live version of the game. While exploring the galaxy, you can find abandoned Gateways that were once part of a massive, galaxy-spanning network. These Gateways are disabled and unusable, but with the Gateway Reactivation mid-game technology and a hefty investment of minerals, they can be restored to working order. Like Wormholes, Gateways allow for near-instant travel to other Gateways, but the difference is that any activated Gateway can be used to travel to any other activated Gateway, and late-game technology allows for the construction of more Gateways to expand the network. Also unlike Wormholes, which cannot be 'closed', Gateways also have the advantage of allowing any empire controlling the system they're in to control who goes through said Gateway - hostile empires and empires to whom you have closed your borders will not be able to use 'your' Gateways to just appear inside of your systems.

When the first Gateway is re-activated, another random Gateway will also be re-activated along with it, so that there is never a situation where you just have a single active Gateway going nowhere. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of abandoned gateways in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_8.png


Jump Drives
Jump Drives and Psi Jump Drives have been changed, and is now an advanced form of FTL that mixes Hyperdrive with some functionality from the old Warp FTL. They allow for a ship to travel normally and very quickly along hyperlanes, but also come equipped with a tactical 'jump' functionality that allows a fleet to make a point-to-point jump ignoring the normal hyperlane limitations. This is done with a special fleet order where you select a target system for the jump (within a certain pre-defined range, with Psi Jump Drives having longer range than regular Jump Drives), after which the fleet charges up its jump drive and creates a temporary wormhole leading to the system. After the fleet makes its 'jump', the Jump Drive will need to recharge, with a significant cooldown before it can be used again, and also applies a debuff to the fleet that reduces its combat effectiveness while the cooldown is in effect. This allows for fleets with Jump Drives to ignore the usual FTL restrictions and skip straight past enemy fleets and stations, but at the cost of leaving themselves vulnerable and potentially stranded for a time afterwards. This design is highly experimental, and may change during the development of Cherryh, but we wanted Jump Drives to not just be 'Hyperdrive IV' but rather to unlock new tactical and strategic possibilities for warfare.

Galactic Terrain
With the switch to Hyperlanes and the creation of strategically important systems and chokepoints, we've also decided to implement something we had always thought was a really interesting idea, but which made little sense without such chokepoints: Galactic Terrain. Specifically, systems with environmental effects and hazards that have profound tactical and strategic effects on ships and empires. This is still something we are in the middle of testing and prototyping, but so far we have created the following forms of Galactic Terrain:
Nebulas block all sensor coverage originating from other systems, meaning that it's impossible for an empire to see what ships and stations are inside a system in a nebula without having a ship or station stationed there, allowing empires to hide their fleets and set up ambushes.
Pulsars interfere with deflector technology, nullifying all ship and station shields in a system with a Pulsar.
Neutron Stars interfere with navigation and ship systems, significantly slowing down sublight travel in a system with a Neutron Star.
Black Holes interfere with FTL, increasing the time it takes for a fleet to charge its emergency FTL and making it more difficult to ships to individually disengage from combat (more on this in a later dev diary).

The above is just a first iteration, and it's something we're likely to tweak and build on more for both the Cherryh update and other updates beyond it, so stay tuned for more information on this.
2017_11_02_3.png

2017_11_02_5.png


That's all for today! I will finish this dev diary by saying that we do not expect everyone to be happy with these changes, but we truly believe that they are necessary to give Stellaris truly great warfare, and that we think you will find the game better for it once you get a chance to try them. We will be doing a Design Corner feature on today's Extraterrestial Thursday stream, where me and Game Designer Daniel Moregård (grekulf) will be discussing the changes, fielding questions and showing off some gameplay in the internal development build. If you want a look at some of these changes in a live game environment, be sure to tune to the Paradox Interactive twitch channel at 4pm CET.

Next week, we're going to talk about war and peace, including the complete rework of the current wargoal system that was made possible by the changes to FTL and system control discussed in this and last week's dev diary. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
The problem isn't actually balance, though that does make things more tricky - the biggest issue is interface complexity and intuitive understanding, and in that regard League of Legends is actually a really good example because it's notorious for being violently unfriendly to new players who haven't learned the ropes. A well-balanced system means nothing when most people are annoyed, confused, and frustrated trying to figure out the system in question and how to actually do anything meaningful with them. A system of hyperlanes with chokepoints, fortresses, and terrain makes immediate intuitive sense to almost everyone here, and from that basis almost everyone can start working out the strategies and tactics you need to work with that system. A system of hyperlane interdictors, warp nets and wormhole traps on the other hand is fuzzy and unintuitive and for most would require a fair bit of headscratching to figure out the meta and the correct strategies to deal with these on a basic level. Paradox as a game designer is trying to create a gameplay system where you DON'T need to figure out the meta just to get by, and that's what including complex systems for all three FTL drives would have entailed - at least in their judgement.

League of Legends is actually a lot easier to pick up now for a new player than it used to be. The biggest problem for new players is the burden of knowledge due to the 100+ some champions now, that and people who smurf just so they can curb stomp new players with champions that exploit the mistakes newer players tend to make. On the Stellaris front, you don't need multiple different ways to stop each FTL type, the problem is people trying to apply the wrong tactics to stop them. Its like trying to compare the strategies to take a Knight in chess, to those needed to take a Rook. Some people really struggle with Knights in chess, but yet they are still in the game after how many years? Maybe what the game needed, instead of the removal of FTL types is a solid tutorial campaign introduction? The lil AI helper that tries to be a tutorial does a very poor job at it.

Yeah, I had a feeling that wasn't necessarily the best analogy, but even so it still does give some insight into the design headache it would be to create something like that. Also, cattle drives? Really?

Yes, really. Cattle and Coal, some of the main exports of the state.
 

Tomn_Peng

Captain
109 Badges
Oct 31, 2006
354
48
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
On the Stellaris front, you don't need multiple different ways to stop each FTL type, the problem is people trying to apply the wrong tactics to stop them.

Well, that's kind of the issue here. If a game is built in such a way that the natural reaction most people have is the wrong one, as a game designer you have screwed up. Saying that "players just need to be better" isn't a game design solution, it's offloading the burden of making intuitive design onto the player. The onus is very much not on the player to do their homework so that they can enjoy themselves, it is on the designer to create a game where people can enjoy themselves. That can be tricky in a complex strategy game, but Paradox has been actively focusing their efforts on trying to make their complexities as easy to grasp as possible and is arguably one of the reasons why they've been so successful, as they made grand strategy accessible to many who were interested in the idea, but were turned off by the more opaque interfaces and systems in other strategy games.

That's not to say that there's no place for complex systems that take a bit of work to understand, but the ideal is that a player should be able to do more or less the right things just by doing what comes naturally, if not necessarily the best things. If the player is actively screwing up by doing what makes sense, that's a problem - and in Paradox's estimation, that would have been an even bigger problem if they tried to create a wide-ranging warfare system integrating the different FTL types.
 

Sibericus

Technocratic Sociocapitalist
26 Badges
Jun 14, 2016
529
91
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
The problem isn't actually balance, though that does make things more tricky - the biggest issue is interface complexity and intuitive understanding, and in that regard League of Legends is actually a really good example because it's notorious for being violently unfriendly to new players who haven't learned the ropes. A well-balanced system means nothing when most people are annoyed, confused, and frustrated trying to figure out the system in question and how to actually do anything meaningful with them. A system of hyperlanes with chokepoints, fortresses, and terrain makes immediate intuitive sense to almost everyone here, and from that basis almost everyone can start working out the strategies and tactics you need to work with that system. A system of hyperlane interdictors, warp nets and wormhole traps on the other hand is fuzzy and unintuitive and for most would require a fair bit of headscratching to figure out the meta and the correct strategies to deal with these on a basic level. Paradox as a game designer is trying to create a gameplay system where you DON'T need to figure out the meta just to get by, and that's what including complex systems for all three FTL drives would have entailed - at least in their judgement.

In that case, hyperlanes-only should be established as the easy mode, and other ftl modes could be allowed for the players that want them. New players and those that want to play hyperlanes-only have the benefits of dealing with a simpler system, while other players can retain their advanced options.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Well, that's kind of the issue here. If a game is built in such a way that the natural reaction most people have is the wrong one, as a game designer you have screwed up. Saying that "players just need to be better" isn't a game design solution, it's offloading the burden of making intuitive design onto the player. The onus is very much not on the player to do their homework so that they can enjoy themselves, it is on the designer to create a game where people can enjoy themselves. That can be tricky in a complex strategy game, but Paradox has been actively focusing their efforts on trying to make their complexities as easy to grasp as possible and is arguably one of the reasons why they've been so successful, as they made grand strategy accessible to many who were interested in the idea, but were turned off by the more opaque interfaces and systems in other strategy games.

That's not to say that there's no place for complex systems that take a bit of work to understand, but the ideal is that a player should be able to do more or less the right things just by doing what comes naturally, if not necessarily the best things. If the player is actively screwing up by doing what makes sense, that's a problem - and in Paradox's estimation, that would have been an even bigger problem if they tried to create a wide-ranging warfare system integrating the different FTL types.

And this is where a good solid tutorial comes in. I don't recall the lil AI helper ever mentioning anything about the different FTL types, and the only indication there might be notable differences is the text on selection of Warp being for beginners and wormhole being for advanced players. The player is just assumed to know the difference between all three. The little AI helper barely covers anything a new player might need in a timely fashion. Which is a big problem in and of itself. I'll use Starcraft's campaign as an example, as the Terran campaign functions much like a tutorial for a good while. It has been a while since I played the original Starcraft campaign, but it didn't instantly start out with you facing multiple races at the same time as well as the more complicated things like aerial and cloaking units. It introduced them gradually, slowly building up the needed knowledge to start figuring things out in full games outside the campaigns. Stellaris just throws a new player in the deep end and goes have fun sinking or swimming and good luck. The problem isn't that the new player is screwing up by doing might be natural in Stellaris's case, the problem is the new player is not taught the rules of the game gradually thanks to the lil AI helper being so terrible at it and having to learn by trial and error. I am fine with Trial and Error, as I also believe in Dwarf Fortress's mantra of Loosing is Fun.(Quoted from the Wiki: "There is no internal end point, single goal, final Easter egg or "You Win!" announcement in Dwarf Fortress. Therefore, eventually, almost every fortress will fall. The only ones that don't tend to be very conservative and very boring—and what fun is that? Thus, DF = losing ∧ DF = fun ⇒ losing = fun, and that's okay! It's a game philosophy, so embrace it, own it, and have fun with it!") Stellaris has a steep initial learning curve, and few aids to get through it, but I don't see the bigger problem being the FTLs and the extra complexity they add as a problem, they help make the game more fun and engaging, and the bigger problem is the game is very shallow right now on multiple fronts so making it shallower is not going to help much. As so far every single change announced for 1.9, can be added without the removal of the FTLs and be successful in accomplishing their individual goals in my opinion.
 

Tomn_Peng

Captain
109 Badges
Oct 31, 2006
354
48
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
In that case, hyperlanes-only should be established as the easy mode, and other ftl modes could be allowed for the players that want them. New players and those that want to play hyperlanes-only have the benefits of dealing with a simpler system, while other players can retain their advanced options.

Well, the issue there is that if you do that, you'd effectively need to design, balance, and maintain two significantly different variants of the same game going forward pretty much as long as Stellaris is maintained. You can't simply bolt the FTL system onto the new system, not if you're intending to actually make a new, coherent warfare system as Paradox is currently trying to do. Maintaining two different branches of the same game, however, is absurdly expensive and time-consuming and isn't really an option as you're basically doubling all the work you need to do to keep everything working from now unto forever.

Stellaris has a steep initial learning curve, and few aids to get through it, but I don't see the bigger problem being the FTLs and the extra complexity they add as a problem, they help make the game more fun and engaging, and the bigger problem is the game is very shallow right now on multiple fronts so making it shallower is not going to help much. As so far every single change announced for 1.9, can be added without the removal of the FTLs and be successful in accomplishing their individual goals in my opinion.

Well, the trick is that warfare as it exists right now ISN'T amazingly complex. Some of the combat tactics may be a little unintuitive, but it all boils down to "Hit the other fleet with a bigger fleet," with the complexities mostly being in either fleet composition or figuring out how to trap the AI so you can actually hit their fleet with your fleet. Which FTL drive you're using exactly matters almost not at all.

The problem lies in precisely what you describe - an attempt to make the game more fun and engaging and less shallow. Warfare is one of the shallowest sections of the game right now, and Paradox is working to change that by designing a new, engaging set of systems built around warfare. The issue they've run into is that making those new systems, making them intuitive for new players (as much of an interface issue as it is purely one of tutorials), and integrating the old FTL systems turned out to be one too many balls for them to juggle well. They ultimately decided that the FTL systems were a worthwhile sacrifice in return for a better, richer warfare system that completely revamps how things used to work. Whether they're ultimately correct is of course something that'll have to wait until release to see exactly, and naturally will remain to some degree a matter of opinion even then, but for my part I see the logic in their course of action, even as I recognize that their course will be unacceptable to some.
 

Nelliel

Private
31 Badges
Nov 8, 2017
17
0
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Age of Wonders III
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Magicka
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II
League of Legends is actually a lot easier to pick up now for a new player than it used to be. The biggest problem for new players is the burden of knowledge due to the 100+ some champions now, that and people who smurf just so they can curb stomp new players with champions that exploit the mistakes newer players tend to make. On the Stellaris front, you don't need multiple different ways to stop each FTL type, the problem is people trying to apply the wrong tactics to stop them. Its like trying to compare the strategies to take a Knight in chess, to those needed to take a Rook. Some people really struggle with Knights in chess, but yet they are still in the game after how many years? Maybe what the game needed, instead of the removal of FTL types is a solid tutorial campaign introduction? The lil AI helper that tries to be a tutorial does a very poor job at it.
This game is jsut as bad for exploting new players look at naked corvete spaming no one wants to be crubstoped 10 years into the game with a tactic thats complely unrealistic (though this points out some flaws in ftls) its also the point that the staions and chokpoints they want to make are pointless cos the static defenses are utter rubbish spaceports might as well not have weapons as other than defendeing you from prirates early vs an empire they do less than nothing and the staic platforms are best used to force people to spwan on the other side of the system (away from your plants obv) i think that stations in genral need looking at as early game ye they are a pain due to the hp they have but once you get cruisers with large weps even the final tier are like poorly done speed bumps.
 

Stihl DRagon

Recruit
8 Badges
Nov 10, 2017
1
0
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
Still the biggest issue for me is this change constitutes false advertising or a scam. If these changes were on the minds of the team then the live streams aka marketing should have been hyperlane only games and they should not have been talking about the other forms of FTL. And using the don't update argument doesn't change anything and is at best a cop-out. I would not have bought the game as a hyperlane only game, and whether these changes make game development easier or not or any other aspect is irrelevant. I bought the game with the DLC the day Synthetic Dawn dropped and I suck at this game but fount it extremely fun however couldn't stand it when playing a hyperlane only game, and find that even with the other changes/improvements don't see myself playing much. So in the end I feel cheated and tho looking forward to Surviving Mars which was the game that brought my attention to this developer I don't see myself purchasing anything in the future with all their games basically being in Beta with changes all the time.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Well, the trick is that warfare as it exists right now ISN'T amazingly complex. Some of the combat tactics may be a little unintuitive, but it all boils down to "Hit the other fleet with a bigger fleet," with the complexities mostly being in either fleet composition or figuring out how to trap the AI so you can actually hit their fleet with your fleet. Which FTL drive you're using exactly matters almost not at all.

The problem lies in precisely what you describe - an attempt to make the game more fun and engaging and less shallow. Warfare is one of the shallowest sections of the game right now, and Paradox is working to change that by designing a new, engaging set of systems built around warfare. The issue they've run into is that making those new systems, making them intuitive for new players (as much of an interface issue as it is purely one of tutorials), and integrating the old FTL systems turned out to be one too many balls for them to juggle well. They ultimately decided that the FTL systems were a worthwhile sacrifice in return for a better, richer warfare system that completely revamps how things used to work. Whether they're ultimately correct is of course something that'll have to wait until release to see exactly, and naturally will remain to some degree a matter of opinion even then, but for my part I see the logic in their course of action, even as I recognize that their course will be unacceptable to some.

This game is jsut as bad for exploting new players look at naked corvete spaming no one wants to be crubstoped 10 years into the game with a tactic thats complely unrealistic (though this points out some flaws in ftls) its also the point that the staions and chokpoints they want to make are pointless cos the static defenses are utter rubbish spaceports might as well not have weapons as other than defendeing you from prirates early vs an empire they do less than nothing and the staic platforms are best used to force people to spwan on the other side of the system (away from your plants obv) i think that stations in genral need looking at as early game ye they are a pain due to the hp they have but once you get cruisers with large weps even the final tier are like poorly done speed bumps.

These two quotes tie together. As pointed out in a different thread about doomstacks and their causes, the biggest reason warfare is shallow, and static defenses didn't matter is Warfare needs to have some kind of Rock-Paper-Scissors interaction going on, and we are essentially missing one of the three, and the AI is always using the same one. In warfare there are three main things that happen, force concentration(aka doomstack), guerilla/Hit&run tactics, and fortifications. Force concentration trumps fortifications, fortifications trump guerrilla tactics, and guerrilla tactics trump force concentration.(This is very simplified as a lot more complicated things go into this) We are missing guerilla tactics due to a number of factors, and there being what appears to be three main culprits the Points of Interest(POI) being Fleets, Planets, and Chokepoints and nothing else of significant value to change outcome of a game, and the all or nothing nature of the combat, and large vs small fleet maneuverability, which ends up removing this option almost entirely outside of exploiting the AI to get stuck chasing a fleet it can't catch or stuck on a planet. And with the AI always concentrating forces, static defenses have no meaning since there are no smaller fleets to defend against, not because the FTL types let one go around them. So essentially we are playing Rock-Paper-Scissors, without Paper and the AI is always using Rock, so we have no options but to have the bigger Rock so to speak.

Some of the upcoming changes look to be attempting to resolve this, but yet to see any that actually convince me they will succeed on this front that and without using arbitrary rules being placed to force us into a more restricted playstyle where can still accomplish the same results with a lil more micro. Couple that with not seeing anything currently that says it would have failed without restricting the FTLs to hyperlanes only, so I am still opposed to the FTL removal. If something radically game changing shows up that can convince me the FTL removal is needed to make the game drastically better, I am willing to change my mind, but as of yet I have not seen anything convincing for the entire FTL removal. I can see a case for slight reworking for performance reasons and commented about that earlier in the thread, but not removal currently.
 

ImpalerWrG

First Lieutenant
14 Badges
Feb 26, 2012
234
249
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
I feel the issues people are having with space travel types like Warp are mostly spill over from the Doom-stack issues. If you fixed stacks then you would have changed many of the underlying problems and dynamics that you used to base this 'FTL too diverse' decisions on. Moving to a primarily lane based systems means an even more doom stack based combat to punch through thouse fortresses systems too mind ya.

What ALL of the FTL system needed FIRST was some kind of FUEL and RANGE limits, ideally energy being used a fuel and reasonable range limits built in to the different styles of FTL. Fuel and Range IMMEDIATELY gives a huge boost to defenders as the attacker must antie up additional resources to initiate combat and can find his fleet stranded in hostile territory even if it is initially victorious. Unlike a Maginot-Line of Static defenses logistics get HARDER on the attacker the more they penetrate. This is far better then trying to buff static defenses, and the fact that no designer has any thought in their head better then 'make the attacker run a gauntlet of static D' shows how shallow their thinking is. Paradox is dying of it's own design incompetence and could not war-game it's way out of a paper-bag.

Logistics is what would crate smaller more tactical engagements, more fluid front lines and better all around game-play. In addition all the 'interdiction' styles described for different FTL types are a straw-man, any designer with half a brain can see that you need just 1-2 types which will effect all types of FTL. A 'snare' pulls an enemy off course and into the snare, a 'repulsor' slows them so you can redirect your fleet to meet them. With reasonable range values on FTL types you won't have enemy doom-stacks popping up in your back yard.
 
Last edited:

SiegDerMaus

Recruit
75 Badges
Sep 13, 2014
8
1
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Island Bound
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is about Faster than Light travel in the Cherryh update, and it's likely to be a controversial one. When discussing, please remember to keep things civil, and I would kindly ask that you read the entire dev diary before rushing to post, as it's going to cover some of the questions and concerns we expect to see from the playerbase. Also, as posted last week, all of these changes are currently far away, and we cannot give more details on ETAs or the exact nature of the Cherryh update than we already have. Thank you!

FTL Rework
The single biggest design issue we have had to tackle in the Stellaris team since release is the asymmetrical FTL. While it's a cool and interesting idea on paper, the honest truth is that the feature just does not fit well into the game in practice, and blocks numerous improvements on a myriad of other features such as warfare and exploration, as well as solutions to fundamental design problems like the weakness of static defenses. After a lot of debate among the designers, we finally decided that if we were ever going to be able to tackle these issues and turn Stellaris into a game with truly engrossing and interesting warfare, we would have to bite the bullet and take a controversial decision: Consolidating FTL from the current three types down into a primarily hyperlane-based game, with more advanced forms of FTL unlocked through technology.

However, as I have said on the previous occasions when discussing this issue, one thing we would never consider doing is just slashing FTL types from the game without adding in something else to compensate their loss. That is what most of this dev diary is going to be about. However, before continuing with the details on the additions and changes we're making to FTL, I want to cover a couple of the questions I expect will arise from this:

Why are you removing FTL choices instead of building on them?
A lot of people have asked this question when we have brought up consolidating FTL types before, suggesting that problems such as static defenses can be solved by just adding more mechanics to handle each special case. I think the problem with this is best illustrated with defense stations and FTL inhibitors. One of the aims of the Starbase system is to give empires the ability to 'lock down' their borders, building fortresses that enemy fleets cannot simply skip past to strike at their core worlds, instead of having to create static defenses in every single valuable system.

With hyperlanes, this is a pretty simple affair: As hyperlanes create natural choke points, the only thing a hyperlane-stopping FTL inhibitor needs to do is to prevent enemy fleets from leaving the system once they enter it. The fleet can enter, it can retreat (via emergency FTL) and it can bring down the source of the FTL inhibitor (which might be a Starbase or even a planet) to be able to continue. This is quite easy to understand, both in terms of which system you need to defend to lock down your borders, and how it works when you are on the offensive.

Now let's add Warp to the mix. In this case, the single-system FTL inhibitor is useless because Warp fleets can just go over it, so we'll invent another mechanic: A warp interdiction bubble, stretching a certain distance around the system, that pull in any hostile Warp fleets traveling there to the system containing the FTL inhibitor, and force them to battle it or retreat. This is immediately a lot more messy: First of all, this bubble can't possibly affect Hyperlane fleets, because it could potentially pull them dozens of jumps away from their current location. This means that when fortifying your borders, you now need to not just make sure that every important chokepoint is covered, but also that your entire border is covered in warp interdiction bubbles.

But there's more: Add Wormholes as well, and you now have an FTL type where not only the 'bubble' type interdictor doesn't make intuitive sense (because Wormhole fleets make point-to-point jumps rather than traveling over the map) but if said interdictor works to pull Wormhole fleets out of position regardless of what makes intuitive sense, you end up with the same probem as with hyperlanes, where the fleet can get pulled out of range of its wormhole network and end up stranded even if it brings down the defenses. This means you pretty much have to invent a third type of interdiction type for Wormhole on top of what is already an overengineered and hard to understand system.

Finally, add the problem of displaying all these different types of inhibitors and interdictors on the map, in a way that the player can even remotely start to understand, and you end up with nothing short of a complete mess, where it's far better to just have static defenses protecting single valuable systems... and so we come full circle.

This is the fundamental problem that we have been grappling with when it comes to asymmetrical FTL: What works in a game such as Sword of the Stars, with its turn-based gameplay, small maps of usually no more than 3-6 empires, and 1-on-1 wars breaks down completely in a Stellaris game with real-time gameplay and wars potentially containing a dozen actors, all with their own form of FTL. The complexity collapses into what is for the player just a mess of fleets appearing and disappearing with no discernible logic to them.

Why Hyperlanes?
When discussing this, we essentially boiled down the consolidation into three possibilities: Hyperlanes only, Warp-only, and Warp+Hyperlanes. Wormhole is simply too different a FTL type to ever really work with the others, and not intuitive enough to work as the sole starting FTL for everyone playing the game. Keeping both Warp and Hyperlanes would be an improvement, but would still keep many of the issues we currently have in regards to user experience and fleet coordination. Warp-only was considered as an alternative, but ultimately Hyperlanes won out because of the possibilities it opens up for galactic geography, static defenses and enhancements to exploration.

Here are the some of the possibilities that consolidation of FTL into Hyperlanes creates for Stellaris:
  • Unified distance, sensor and border systems that make sense for everyone (for example, cost of claiming a system not being based on euclidean distance but rather the actual distance for ships to travel there)
  • Galactic 'geography', systems that are strategically and tactically important due to location and 'terrain' (more on this below) rather than just resources
  • More possibilities for galaxy generation and exploration (for example, entire regions of space accessible only through a wormhole or a single guarded hyperlane, containing special locations and events to discover)
  • Better performance through caching and unified code (Wormhole FTL in particular is a massive resource hog in the late game)
  • Warfare with a distinct sense of 'theatres', advancing/retreating fronts and border skirmishes (more on this in future dev diaries)
Are all new forms of FTL free patch content?
Yes. Naturally we're not going to charge for any form of content meant to replace the loss of old FTL types.

Hyperlane and Sublight Travel
As mentioned, in the Cherryh update. all empires will now start the game with Hyperlanes as their only mode of FTL. By default, hyperlane generation is going to be changed to create more 'islands' and 'choke points', to make for more interesting galactic geography. However, as we know some players do not enjoy the idea of constricted space, we are going to add a slider that controls the general frequency and connectivity of hyperlanes. Turning this up will create a more connected galaxy and make it harder to protect all your systems with static defenses, for players who prefer something closer to the current game's Warp-style movement.

Sublight travel is also being changed somewhat, in the sense that you need to actually travel to the entry point to a particular hyperlane (the arrow inside a system) to enter it, rather than being able to enter any hyperlane from any point outside's a system's gravity well. This means that fleets will move in a more predictable fashion, and interdictions will frequently happen inside systems instead of nearly always being at the edge of them, in particular allowing for fleets to 'guard' important hyperlane entry/exit points. To compensate for the need to move across systems, sublight travel has been sped up, especially with more advanced forms of thrusters.
View attachment 311246

FTL Sensors
Along with the change to FTL, we are also changing the way sensors work. Instead of simply being a circle radiating an arbitrary distance from a ship, station or planet, each level of sensors can now see a certain distance in FTL connections. For example, a ship with level 1 sensors (Radar) will only give sensor coverage of the same system that it is currently in, while a ship with level 2 (Gravitic) sensors will give sensor coverage of that system and all systems connected to it through a Hyperlane or explored Wormhole (more on that below), a ship with level 3 sensors will be able to see systems connected to those systems, and so on. Sensor coverage can be 'blocked' by certain galactic features (more on that below), which will also block propagation into further connected systems. We are currently discussing the implementation of sensor blockers as a potential Starbase component.
View attachment 311245

Wormholes
While Wormhole as a full-fledged FTL type is gone, Wormholes are not. Instead they have been changed into a natural formation that can be encountered while exploring the galaxy. Wormholes come in pairs, essentially functioning as very long hyperlanes that can potentially take a ship across the entire galaxy near-instantly. Natural Wormholes are unstable, and when first encountered, you will not be able to explore them. To explore a Wormhole, you need the Wormhole Stabilization technology, after which a science ship can be sent to stabilize and chart the Wormhole to find out what lies on the other side. If you're lucky, this may be unclaimed space full of valuable systems, but it could just as well be a Devouring Swarm eager to come over for dinner. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of wormhole pairs in the galaxy.
View attachment 311248

Gateways
Gateways is an advanced form of FTL most closely resembling the Wormhole FTL in the live version of the game. While exploring the galaxy, you can find abandoned Gateways that were once part of a massive, galaxy-spanning network. These Gateways are disabled and unusable, but with the Gateway Reactivation mid-game technology and a hefty investment of minerals, they can be restored to working order. Like Wormholes, Gateways allow for near-instant travel to other Gateways, but the difference is that any activated Gateway can be used to travel to any other activated Gateway, and late-game technology allows for the construction of more Gateways to expand the network. Also unlike Wormholes, which cannot be 'closed', Gateways also have the advantage of allowing any empire controlling the system they're in to control who goes through said Gateway - hostile empires and empires to whom you have closed your borders will not be able to use 'your' Gateways to just appear inside of your systems.

When the first Gateway is re-activated, another random Gateway will also be re-activated along with it, so that there is never a situation where you just have a single active Gateway going nowhere. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of abandoned gateways in the galaxy.
View attachment 311251

Jump Drives
Jump Drives and Psi Jump Drives have been changed, and is now an advanced form of FTL that mixes Hyperdrive with some functionality from the old Warp FTL. They allow for a ship to travel normally and very quickly along hyperlanes, but also come equipped with a tactical 'jump' functionality that allows a fleet to make a point-to-point jump ignoring the normal hyperlane limitations. This is done with a special fleet order where you select a target system for the jump (within a certain pre-defined range, with Psi Jump Drives having longer range than regular Jump Drives), after which the fleet charges up its jump drive and creates a temporary wormhole leading to the system. After the fleet makes its 'jump', the Jump Drive will need to recharge, with a significant cooldown before it can be used again, and also applies a debuff to the fleet that reduces its combat effectiveness while the cooldown is in effect. This allows for fleets with Jump Drives to ignore the usual FTL restrictions and skip straight past enemy fleets and stations, but at the cost of leaving themselves vulnerable and potentially stranded for a time afterwards. This design is highly experimental, and may change during the development of Cherryh, but we wanted Jump Drives to not just be 'Hyperdrive IV' but rather to unlock new tactical and strategic possibilities for warfare.

Galactic Terrain
With the switch to Hyperlanes and the creation of strategically important systems and chokepoints, we've also decided to implement something we had always thought was a really interesting idea, but which made little sense without such chokepoints: Galactic Terrain. Specifically, systems with environmental effects and hazards that have profound tactical and strategic effects on ships and empires. This is still something we are in the middle of testing and prototyping, but so far we have created the following forms of Galactic Terrain:
Nebulas block all sensor coverage originating from other systems, meaning that it's impossible for an empire to see what ships and stations are inside a system in a nebula without having a ship or station stationed there, allowing empires to hide their fleets and set up ambushes.
Pulsars interfere with deflector technology, nullifying all ship and station shields in a system with a Pulsar.
Neutron Stars interfere with navigation and ship systems, significantly slowing down sublight travel in a system with a Neutron Star.
Black Holes interfere with FTL, increasing the time it takes for a fleet to charge its emergency FTL and making it more difficult to ships to individually disengage from combat (more on this in a later dev diary).

The above is just a first iteration, and it's something we're likely to tweak and build on more for both the Cherryh update and other updates beyond it, so stay tuned for more information on this.
View attachment 311247
View attachment 311249

That's all for today! I will finish this dev diary by saying that we do not expect everyone to be happy with these changes, but we truly believe that they are necessary to give Stellaris truly great warfare, and that we think you will find the game better for it once you get a chance to try them. We will be doing a Design Corner feature on today's Extraterrestial Thursday stream, where me and Game Designer Daniel Moregård (grekulf) will be discussing the changes, fielding questions and showing off some gameplay in the internal development build. If you want a look at some of these changes in a live game environment, be sure to tune to the Paradox Interactive twitch channel at 4pm CET.

Next week, we're going to talk about war and peace, including the complete rework of the current wargoal system that was made possible by the changes to FTL and system control discussed in this and last week's dev diary. See you then!
Great! Fantastic! One question, though. Will we be getting refunds?
 

TheDeadlyShoe

Lt. General
44 Badges
Aug 22, 2008
1.304
161
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Magicka 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2: Ice, Death and Fury
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
I feel the issues people are having with space travel types like Warp are mostly spill over from the Doom-stack issues. If you fixed stacks then you would have changed many of the underlying principles that you used to base your decisions on. Moving to a primarily lane based systems means and even more doom stack based combat to punch through thouse fortresses systems.

What ALL of the FTL system needed FIRST was some kind of FUEL and RANGE limits, ideally energy being used a fuel and reasonable range limits built in to the different styles of FTL. This is what would crate smaller more tactical engagements, more fluid front lines and better all around game-play. In addition all the 'interdiction' styles described for different FTL types are a straw-man, any designer with half a brain can see that you need just 1-2 types which will effect all types of FTL. A 'snare' pulls an enemy off course and into the snare, a 'repulsor' slows them so you can redirect your fleet to meet them. With reasonable range values on FTL types you won't have enemy doom-stacks popping up in your back yard.
as pointed out a frankly incredible amount of times, snares dont work for anything but warp because the restrictions placed on wormholes and hyperlanes make it possible to strand a fleet.
 

ImpalerWrG

First Lieutenant
14 Badges
Feb 26, 2012
234
249
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
@TheDeadlyShoe
Poppycock, first the attacker getting his fleet stranded is A GOOD THING, that's exactly what we should be looking to get with a proper logistics system in place, that would give people a reason not to have 1 giant doom fleet.

Second their are numerous work around that can lessen the risk for the attacker should we wish to do so, such as an 'emergency' range extension for Wormholes that damage them the way Emergency FTL damages ships using other systems. A snare system acting on a hyperlane traveling ship simply flows out only over hyperlane connections and can't pull a ship off of a lane and through empty space, instead it forces any ship trying to leave a covered system to travel towards the snare along the hyper-lane instead, in essence a 1-way exit. All of this is easily visualized on the map if one spends any thought on the issue.

So please do not regurgitate the Devs sloppy defeatist arguments to me, any designer with half a brain has already seen through the straw-man they constructed.
 

Rickswan

Recruit
75 Badges
Nov 3, 2017
1
0
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
I rarely post on forums, but I view this as such a shame and injustice that I had to speak out, and let my fellow players know how I feel.

Arguments against removing 2/3rds of the FTL:
  1. False advertising. They promoted the game with the promise of 3 types of FTL. This was one of the things that intrigued me enough to buy it, and I even pitched the game to a friend as one of its selling points.
  2. Trust issues. With such a massive core mechanic change this late into the core game (not an optional expansion or mode, the core game), I can not trust this developer going forward. The game is not marked early access on Steam, so the player should not have to fear that existing core systems will get changed or removed like it's still in beta.
  3. Reduction in scope and flexibility. Stellaris to me is as much a story-generating toolbox as it is a game, similar to another favorite game of mine, Rimworld. I always saw Stellaris as a dream game because its systems were uniquely suited to being both a simulator and a role-playing experience. No other game came close to offering this. Look at how perfect the Star Trek and Star Wars mods (New Horizons and a Galaxy Divided) work within Stellaris as it is - and these two universes use two fundamentally different types of FTL. Star Trek uses warp and Star Wars uses "hyperspace" which is closest to hyperlanes. In Stellaris, the options were limitless, and it seemed that the devs would only make the game bigger and better as time went on - not smaller and worse. Maybe one could argue that different types of FTL is unbalanced because one is functionally better than the other. Fine, then play with only one FTL type allowed to all factions at a time. Play a warp-only game for Star Trek, a hyperlanes only game for Star Wars, and a wormhole only game for Stargate (or whatever). This works for multiplayer balance as well - make a match where everyone uses the same type of FTL, and boom, it's balanced. Even the "messy" systems become less messy if you are only playing with one FTL type at a time. My point is, leave all the tools on the table, don't leave me with one tool to work with because I can't build as much with only one tool.
  4. Realism. I understand the desire for "galactic terrain" like nebulae and whatnot. I understand the desire for fleets of ships to make lines of battle and whatnot. I also understand that in reality, space is big and empty and 3-dimensional, and you could fly around nebulae and attack other ships from any direction. Even in fiction, in the Wrath of Khan, it wasn't like Khan had no choice but to go into the nebula, he willingly pursued Kirk into it. Of the plausible methods of distant space travel, none relies on invisible naturally (or precursor technology, yuck) space highways of travel, but even if it were, come on man. It's space. It's meant to be free, the ultimate frontier, not like being forced to drive on man-made roads - it's more like piloting on the wide free ocean. Many players see warfare as the weakest aspect of the game and it's a reasonable thing to try and improve, but I cannot agree with how they choose to do this: by making space warfare more like land warfare, if land warfare was restricted to roads. It's silly.
  5. Taking the easy way out. Sure, they laid out their argument in OP's first post: keeping the other types of FTL would be messy. The fact that this thread has well over 200 pages of people disagreeing (at the time of this writing) shows that people don't exactly agree. Hell, even the "messy" solutions given in Wiz's original post sound far more interesting and fun than a restrictive hyperlane-only playstyle! Like, why not have the interdiction bubble cover all 3 types of FTL, forcing warp civs to use hyperlanes within the bubble? People aren't stupid, especially people who play grand strategy games, and I would give them the benefit of the doubt on being able to grasp new systems. Hell, you developers are smart, I'm sure you could have come up with systems that build upon what you have in a fun way if you only tried instead of dismissing it outright. People do like the game how it is, and want more of it, not less. Save massive changes for dumbed-down sequels, not mandatory updates (choosing not to update isn't a real solution). Build upon what you have, don't do things just because it makes your job easier. I hear you saying in the Twitch streams that you have limited development time and whatnot. This is understandable, but if you couldn't find a balance with 3 FTL types, I'm sure modders could have - but you have even taken that away from us. You could even have kept all 3 FTL types but segregated them into different modes, but instead it seems like the easiest path was taken to ease the burden on your shoulders. Yes, it's easier to handle things when you don't have to juggle rock, paper and scissors, but it's not nearly as fun when you just have rock.
  6. Favoritism. I prefer warp. If they announced that they were getting rid of every travel type but warp, I admit I wouldn't be as peeved as I am right now - but it would still be wrong, and anger the wormhole and hyperlane players. It would still be restricting. I like the idea that I can freshen up the replay value by playing as wormhole next time, or hyperlane, or warp - like it's a whole new game. I can't help but think that the current development team prefers hyperlanes and using static defenses, other playstyles be damned. They try and rationalize and justify the removal of the other two FTL types by saying how they couldn't achieve the goals they want (land-style warfare and terrain... in space) and that the removal of features will bring more features, but that's all it is - rationalization and justification. But hey, you can build still play worm-hole kinda (extra-long hyperlanes) and practically play warp still if you increase the number of hyperlanes (... sure). It's like if Adobe's developers didn't use some features of Photoshop, so in the latest patch they stripped filters and tools they personally didn't use because they didn't feel like updating them - customers would be rightfully livid.
  7. Slippery slope. For many, this isn't just one change, it's writing on the wall: raw gameplay over all else. I don't see Paradox's strength as being a traditional game developer, I see it as being a role-playing simulation sandbox developer that lets you play out "what if?" scenarios (like what if Poland invaded Germany first in Hearts of Iron?). This focus on dumbing down systems and on multiplayer balance is troubling because it feels like they are changing focus to the more casual, to the e-sports and multiplayer streaming crowd, rather than on what many people bought the game for - role-playing their dream civilization in an open-ended and flexible simulation. It seems Paradox is stepping on the toes of the latter to please the former, and as a consumer I find changes like this without our input to be an uncaring and unfriendly act on their part. It's like if you signed a marriage contract and then your spouse started changing for the worse, and then started doing things without your input and stopped caring about how you feel, they just do whatever they want because that's how they like it and it makes their lives easier... but at least in that scenario, you can at least get a divorce. If you remove core features, it's no longer the game I married... or something.
 

gja102

Captain
84 Badges
May 7, 2008
482
284
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Cities in Motion 2
It may have been mentioned before, I just wanted to post an idea for some kind of compromise FTL model that is a synthesis of hyperlanes and warp.

1) Divide the map into adjoining, irregular-but-broadly-hexagonal “regions”. A region could encompass between 1 and 4 stars, they essentially represent stellar neighbourhoods. (It is not quite a 'hex' or 'province' system but it shares some characteristics with those.)

2) FTL travel has to be one region at a time (maybe the lore is that you have to stop off at a star after each jump to recharge the warp). So warping to any of the stars in the adjacent region will always take 1 jump, warping to any star in a region beyond that will trace a path of 2 jumps, etc. This retains most of the ‘freedom’ of warp drives, in that you are not channelled down a specific line on the map. But, it also retains the advantages of hyperlanes, in that relative jump distances, sensor ranges etc are all known constants, because the main calculation factor is always the number of fixed jumps between two points, which is set by the regions system.

3) Some regions are ‘barren’ and cannot be travelled through (devoid of stars, full of radiation clouds, etc). This retains the possibility of meaningful geography and key strategic choke points.

4) Regions (or possibly the starbases within) exert a Zone of Control – although you can travel into an enemy region from inside friendly/neutral space, you cannot warp from inside one enemy region into another enemy region (without taking some kind of control of the first enemy region). This retains the sense of “borders” that hyperlanes provide – you won’t be able to trace a path to the enemy homeworld without first knocking out their border fortresses in the outlying regions.

I know it’s probably too late, I just wanted to point out that, whilst I agree with the aims of the FTL rework, it doesn’t necessarily follow that moving to hyperlanes is the only way to achieve those aims.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.441
38.788
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
Its moslty the same 20 people over the 200 pages if one person could only replay once it would be about 10 pages
"If forum software was completely unfit for purpose" is not an interesting scenario to consider :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.